Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Bhojpur Club on 14 February, 2006
ORDER M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)
1. In this case the respondents, registered as Mandap keeper, did not discharge their service tax liability for the period 1.4.97 to 30th June, 2002. Show cause notice was issued to the respondents and demand was confirmed against them and penalty imposed under various sections. The respondents discharged the service tax liability along with appropriate interest. Considering this fact the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the penalties imposed on the respondents vide his Order-in-Appeal dated 17.11.2004. The department is in appeal against the said order of dropping of the penalties against the respondents.
2. None appeared for the respondents despite notice. Considered the submissions made by the learned D.R. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal has dropped various penalties imposed on the respondents relying upon the Board's Circular dated 23.9.2004. The relevant findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are as under:
(i) I find that there are a catena of decisions of various appellate for a to 2006 the effect that in the initial stages of introduction of this public oriented wide spread new levy, many of new assessees being ignorant, such procedural delays in taking up of registration and consequent filing of the returns etc. a lenient view can be taken. This was precisely the reason as to why many new Voluntary Disclosure schemes for voluntary compliance like Extra Ordinary Tax Payer Friendly Scheme declared under Board's F.No. 137/39/2004-CX.4, dated 23.9.04 to be operational upto 30.10.04 in respect of the assessees who had not at all complied with the provisions of Service Tax Law had been launched waiving the various penalties under the aforesaid Sections 75A, 76 & 77 etc. When the assessees who did not at all comply with the Service Tax Law can be given immunity provided they pay the Service Tax along with appropriate rate of interest, there is no tangible and logical reason as to why the law abiding assessee who had got himself registered more or less in time and had also started paying the Service Tax along with interest, much before the new scheme became operational, should be denied the benefit of waiver of the penal provisions referred to above for late registration, delay in filing of relevant returns etc. all of which are procedural in nature.
(ii) In view of the aforesaid findings, I am inclined to waive the various penalties imposed on the said party for the reason that they had themselves voluntarily discharged payment of Service Tax along with interest.
To my mind the above findings clearly appreciated the law and the intention of the Government while waiving the penalties imposed on the respondents. Hence, no interference is required with the impugned Order. Appeal of the department is dismissed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.)